On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 10:44 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
> On 06/10/2019 08:57 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 08:09 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed
> > > > > + * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) {
> > > > > + if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap))
> > > >
> > > > don't need an 'if A if B', can do 'if A && B'
> > >
> > > Which will make it a very lengthy condition check.
> >
> > Well, is there any problem line-breaking the if condition?
> >
> > if (A && B && C &&
> > D && E )
> >
> > Also, if it's used only to decide the return value, maybe would be fine
> > to do somethink like that:
> >
> > return (A && B && C &&
> > D && E );
>
> Got it. But as Dave and Matthew had pointed out earlier, the current x86
> implementation has better readability. Hence will probably stick with it.
>
Sure, I agree with them. It's way more readable.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
